Quid Mihi Et Tibi Est?

The End of Modernist Pretence

2009-02-02T12:50:00.011-05:00

†J.M.J.†
So, unless you've been pretty much living under a rock in the Catholic world lately, you are aware that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, or SSPX, has been in the news extensively. If you have in fact been living under a rock, it has pretty much gone down something like this: last Saturday, on January 24, the Pope released the much anticipated decree formally remitting the latae sententiae excommunications against the four SSPX bishops who were illictly consecrated bishops by Archbishop Lefebrve in 1988 not only without papal mandate, but in direct contravention of Rome's orders to His Excellency.

Naturally, just as they do everytime the Pope does something in violation of the Almighty "Spirit of Vatican II," just about everybody had a little tantrum about the Pope readmitting true Traditionalists to the fold. Granted, Bishop Richard Williamson ruffled more than a few feathers with his rather imprudent remarks concerning the Holocaust, but in classical Modernist style, the press, like a small child with a severe case of ADHD, is completely incapable of focusing on why the penalty of excommunication was imposed in the first place, let alone why it was lifted. Instead, it sees fit to run pieces fully based on nothing more than their very poorly formed opinion of the Catholic Church as long as the words "Pope" and "Holocaust denier" are in the headline.

And, like a cat waiting to pounce, many Modernists have not yet ceased in their shrill cries of "foul!" ever since word of the remission has came down. I say "waiting to pounce" because many Modernists have already expressed grave concern about Pope Benedict and his program of "reforming the reform," but have not yet seen an opportunity to show their true colors in regard to how they feel about Tradition. Naturally, they hated it when Benedict was elected in 2005, because they knew what he stood for. They hated it when he published documents from the CDF proclaiming the Catholic Church the sole "Church of Jesus Christ." And they definitely hated it when he finally refused to tolerate any further illicit suppression of the Traditional Mass by bishops in the publication of Summorum Pontificum. But, as any clever enemy, they have been patient; now they feel the time has come, however, to openly denounce His Holiness for the "backwards, medieval, mean" person that he apparently is. Moreover, however, I think we may be seeing the beginning of the end to the modernist pretence that they are even remotely interested in preserving any shred of authentic Catholicism as transmitted by the Apostles. I believe the following article from America magazine epitomizes what I am trying to express here: (my emphases and [comments])

Robert Mickens, the Rome correspondent for the London Tablet has a lengthy article on the SSPX saga in this week's Tablet.

He also sent us this much more personal reflection, which he has allowed us to post here:

Pope Benedict XVI said at his general audience on Wednesday that the four bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X (SSPX) -- the so-called Lefebvrists -- will now have to show their "true fidelity and true recognition of the magisterium and authority of the Pope and of Vatican Council II". [SSPX has always accepted the fullness of the magisterium and the authority of the Pope. Vatican II, on the other hand, does not really have any authority because it made no definitions which can demand the assent of faith from Catholics.]

What does this mean?

In an interview the next day in the Italian paper "Corriere della Sera", Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, claimed that the head of the Lefebvrists had already recogised the Council and said confidently that he and his group would be eventually welcomed back into the Roman Church. [Soon!!] Conservative blogs quoted sources that said 2 February would be the day, [Not quite, obviously. I thought this was overly optimistic from the start.] though it seems extremely unlikely if not impossible. There have to be some discussions or at least a semblance of them. But...

"Full communion will come," said the cardinal, who heads the commission that deals with the Lefebvrists. "In our conversations, Bishop Fellay has recognised Vatican Council II, he has recognised it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain," he said, "such as ecumenism and freedom of conscience..." [These have pretty much always been the primary SSPX sticking points on VII]

But do not think the Lefebvrists will be made to budge. The Vatican is intent on finding a formula that they sign without denying anything they hold. [That would be ideal, yes.]

A young professor at the Legionaries of Christ's university in Rome, Fr Mauro Gagliardi, gave a clue of what to expect.

"The Fraternity of St Pius X can offer the Church an important contribution in applying the 'hermeneutic of continuity' [This would be perfect for them.] that must be applied to the documents of Vatican II," he said.

This apparent reference to Pope Bendict's hermeneutic for interpreting the Council is imprecise -- as Fr Joseph Komonchak and others have clearly pointed out -- but it is not altogether mistaken. And Fr Gagliardi is not just any professor in Rome. He was recently named as consultant to the papal liturgical ceremonies office and mixes in the circles that are currently in favour in the Vatican. He said, "The 'Lefebvrists' have a spirituality and charism that can be a richness for the life of the entire Church." This certainly is the view of Cardinal Castrillon and probably reflects, at least in some measure, the Pope's thinking, too.

There is no question that Pope Benedict wants the SSPX back in the Church. Up to now he has done everything to accommodate them on their terms. He will do so on the interpretation of the Council, as well. The two CDF documents in 2007 (on the nature of the Church on 29 June and on evangelisation on 3 December ) have already begun paving the way for this. The Lefebvrists will argue, and the Pope will agree, that, in substance, we have the same doctrine after Vatican II as we had before. [Actually, John XXIII said this when he told the Council that their mission was purely pastoral in nature, and that no doctrinal definition ought to take place. Moreover, even if Vatican II was a dogmatic council, no doctrine can contradict that which precedes it, and so any notion of "change" of doctrine is out of the question completely.] All "changes" were merely stylistic or operational, but not theogical -- i.e. none of the changes were essential, so none have to be adopted. [SSPX will probably insist on this and they will probably get it.] The Vatican and the SSPX will also say, together, that much of the Council was badly misinterpreted by theologians and bishops in the post-conciliar period, [Is there anyone who isn't excommunicated or shouldn't be who honestly still believes that it wasn't?] and they will even cite the long list of theologians the CDF condemned to prove that Rome never caved in. Despite everything to the contrary (i.e. the fact that the SSPX does not really buy or live Vatican II), they will find a way together to finagle a formula that helps them profess "true fidelity and true recognition" of the Council (in light of the constant Tradition) but allows them to continue living as if Vatican II never existed. [This is the crux of the piece. This is what truly has the author so upset. How dare they go on with their lives without submitting to the superdoctrine of Vatican II Modernism?] There are already a number of "Ecclesia Dei" communities in communion in Rome (off-shoots of the SSPX like the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter) that currently do this.

The formula that is produced will be just as disingenuous as the invented nonsense of "two forms of the one Roman Rite". [He hates Summorum Pontificum too.]

You are probably saying this scenario is an exaggeration and that this could never happen. Many have said it before. Not a few people called me strident, hysterical and worse back in 2005 when I started saying that the Pope was intent on issuing a universal indult for use of the Tridentine Mass. The motu proprio finally arrived in July 2007 and then most people tried to downplay it, saying it would have no practical effect in our parishes, etc.. Again I said they were. ["I told you so..."] It has only been eighteen months (!) and the changes are beginning to take place, especially in seminaries. [Well, we can't have young Priests being faithful to Tradition, can we? That would set back a lot of work by a lot of people.]

All of this should be a cause of great alarm to those of us who still believe that something monumental happened at Vatican II, that there were developments, reforms and -- yes -- points of rupture with the past [!!] (despite the Pope's unconvincing arguments to the contrary).

Joseph Ratzinger is completing, as pope, the work he began more than twenty-five years ago as prefect of the CDF. It is no less ambitious than the wholesale reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. [Hopefully!] And no one seems willing or able to stop him." [That's the beauty of the primacy of Peter, but he probably doesn't like that either...]-- Robert Mickens

James Martin, SJ

I think I can safely rest my case here.

Praise. Song. For. The. Day.

2009-01-21T23:10:00.005-05:00

†J.M.J.†
This is what passed for poetry yesterday at the inauguration from Yale Professor Elizabeth Alexander. Hilarious:

"...picked the cotton and the lettuce?" Really? Not only does the poem demonstrate a startling ignorance of even the most fundamental elements of poesy, (I'm sure most children are born with a better poetic ear than this woman.) but her manner of reading it brought nothing to mind except the computerized recitation of "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" from grade school typing classes, complete with all the awkward pauses of a voice entirely devoid of all human sense of ordinary empathetic elocution, let alone poetic declamation.
As if Obama wasn't enough, this woman was an embarassment to the entire nation yesterday, especially when it is remembered that the first poet to read at an American Presidental Inauguration wrote this:

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
so dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

...and this:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

It was pretty good for a laugh though...

"And as you would that men should do to you..."

2009-01-20T20:12:00.005-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Another very compelling video from the Fidelis Center's CatholicVote website. Like the previous videos during the campaign, it is moving both in its depth of vision and urgency of purpose, while maintaining the very useful rhetoric of pedagogy which hopefully wins many converts to the pro-life cause:

Lowery Mocks God With Racist 'Prayer' at Inauguration

2009-01-20T20:05:00.006-05:00

†J.M.J.†
The 87 year-old celebrated civil rights leader Joseph Lowery gave the benediction today at Barack Obama's inauguration where he concluded with the following rhyme very popular among Black Protestants amidst the civil rights movement in the 1960s: (emphasis mine)

We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around. When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.

I found this all rather odd, considering especially that it was whites who, having already embraced what is right, led the abolitionist movement when blacks could not free themselves from the bonds of slavery. Even more odd, too, since without the tremendous support Barack Obama received from the white electorate in the United States, he could not have possibly even hoped for victory in November.
Sadly, I really can't say I'm surprised in the least by the character of those persons invited to participate today in the inauguration by Barack Obama; once again, he is known by the company he keeps. The way he totally botched the oath of office was embarassing too... If today is an indicator of the next four years, we're in for rough times.

Tradition!

2009-01-14T16:09:00.004-05:00

†J.M.J.†
You already understand if you are a traditional Catholic or Jew. If you're not, it really can't be explained:

Mrs. Bush on the Importance of Catholic Education

2009-01-14T16:00:00.004-05:00

†J.M.J.†
The outgoing First Lady made a visit recently to Little Flower School in Betheseda, Maryland. She had quite a bit of praise for Catholic education:

You have a long history of both academics and also of making sure American children in Catholic schools learn the values that are important to all of us and that are important to the people of the United States…

Read the rest here...

Hmmm... The values that are important to all of us, Mrs. Bush? I'm not too sure your husband's successor feels the same way, sadly.

A Stirring Santa Sermon

2008-12-16T02:15:00.003-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Patrick Archbold of the light-hearted Catholic blog Creative Minority Report recently posted a very interesting story about a Priest who debunked the myth of Santa Claus in his sermon. Patrick has several small children and so perhaps it goes without saying that he was somewhat disgruntled about the whole affair. I got a little embroiled in the combox with some of his other regulars about the prudence of denouncing this Priest over his Santa sermon and of teaching the Santa Claus myth to children in the first place:

I think you read my comment in the wrong light. My point wasn't so much that Father has the right to run around telling all the neighborhood children that there isn't any Santa, but rather that you ought not to be furious with him for giving a sermon heedless of the large number of children assisting at the Mass. And why did I feel it necessary to make that point? Because, as Saint John Chrysostom tell us, "he who honors a Priest, honors Christ, and he who insults a Priest, insults Christ." I more or less live by that quote. In other words, if you are furious with a Priest, you have better have a better reason than "he debunked Santa Claus during a sermon." This is not the first time I have felt the need to comment on your rash treatment of Priests in your posts, who, lest we forget, take the place of God.
The question you really need to ask yourself before you decide to rebuke (publicly, as you have done here) a Priest, especially as a layperson, is "Would I rebuke Christ if He were to do the same?" And then, only if you'd be willing to stake your soul on your confidence that Christ would never do such a thing, should you procede to speak against a Priest or to rebuke him in public. Now, of course, it is a much lighter matter to simply take your concerns to Father in private. So, basically, my point is that, when it comes to rebuking a Priest, do it privately lest, in the words of Saint Thomas Becket, you "impale your soul" upon your own sword.

Read the rest at Patrick's blog... Also, read an excerpt from Saint Alphonsus Liguori's The Dignity and Duties of the Priest for some perspective on my position.

The Last of the Great Jesuits

2008-12-12T23:57:00.006-05:00

†J.M.J.†
His Eminence Avery Robert Cardinal Dulles, S.J. died today at Fordham University. Sadly, he was the last great Jesuit theologian. Please pray for the repose of his soul and for the Society of Jesus. From his Presbyterate ordination:

USCCB Reviews Pro-gay Film 'Milk'

2008-12-05T12:20:00.009-05:00

†J.M.J.†
And inevitably causes scandal... In other news, dog bites man. The continual scandal given by the USCCB Film and Broadcasting Office is yet another reason why they are not at all helpful (dare I say detrimental?) to the propagation of the Faith in the United States. Here is the review, with my emphases and [comments]:

Milk (Full Review)

"Milk" (Focus) [This is definitely their first problem... You don't legitimize this nonsense with a review] is a solid biographical drama about San Francisco supervisor and gay rights [Are there really any rights other than human rights?] activist Harvey Milk [Harvey Bernard Milk] (Sean Penn), his tumultuous rise to the supervisor post after three failed runs for city and state office, and his 1978 assassination -- along with Mayor George Moscone (Victor Garber) -- by deranged fellow supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin).

The film concentrates more on Milk's activities in the public arena [...such as the corruption of good societal morals...] than on his private life, though it begins with him celebrating his 40th birthday in New York, and deciding to relocate to San Francisco with his partner, Scott Smith (James Franco). They open a camera shop on Castro Street, and Milk's political aspirations crystallize as he becomes increasingly interested in fighting for equal rights for homosexuals.

Director Gus Van Sant effectively brings an almost cinema verite style (cinematography by Harris Savides on location in the Bay Area) to this docudrama, and several of Milk's colleagues play themselves or appear briefly on camera. Dustin Lance Black's screenplay is, by all accounts, scrupulously accurate.

Penn is especially fine, and Brolin is scarily intense as the Catholic White. (We're shown a lengthy baptism of White's baby, with Milk ironically the only invited outsider.) The strong cast also includes Emile Hirsch as activist Cleve Jones, Alison Pill as campaign manager Anne Kronenberg, and Denis O'Hare as California State Sen. John Briggs, who clashes with Milk over allowing the issue of allowing gays to teach in schools. [This is where any truly Catholic review would add "rightly so."]

The film contains brief scenes of homosexual activity including male kissing and nongraphic encounters, rear male nudity, murder, suicide, and some rough language, crude expressions and profanity. [Okay, so it should easily receive the "O - morally offensive" rating, right?] The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is L -- limited adult audience, [I guess not... This is egregious.] films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. [Hmmm... I think "reprehensible" or "evil" is how most sensible adults would find it.] The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R -- restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

The USCCB regularly gives permissive or even positive reviews of such movies as this, (see such reviews as of Brokeback Mountain or The Golden Compass) and it needs to stop. This does nothing to relieve anxiety over the acceptability of such a film, but only continues to undermine the notion that the USCCB actually supports Catholic teaching.

The Decisions That Stay

2008-12-05T11:59:00.003-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Some seemingly hard choices just never really go away:

Like any good Catholic, I love the pictures from the Baltimore Catechism. It is always important in the pursuit of virtue to remember that, sometimes, choices really are that simple. Sometimes the "gray area" is just the space between our excuses and the right thing... More on this later; and more pictures!

"I Don't Want To Know"

2008-12-04T00:53:00.003-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Avideo that shows the very vile, and very true, nature of Planned Parenthood and the evil people who work there to contribute to the murder of innocent infants and to physical and emotional violence against women. The federal government gives more money each year to these people to carry on with their damnable purposes:

There's not really much more you can say about this woman that she hasn't already made plain. Pray for her and the others who work with her, for their conversion; that the words of Saint Monica, "No one is far from God," may prove true even today...

You Can't, Like, Speak English

2008-12-03T21:25:00.020-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Researchers at Oxford University compiled a very short summary of what is becoming an increasingly long list of inaccurate, stupid, and immensely irritating phrases used by people who claim to speak the English language. Their top ten:

1 - At the end of the day

2 - Fairly unique

3 - I personally

4 - At this moment in time

5 - With all due respect

6 - Absolutely

7 - It's a nightmare

8 - Shouldn't of

9 - 24/7

10 - It's not rocket science

Some of my own:

Closed-minded
Per se (or perse, or, may God forbid it: per say)
Like
I could care less
Same difference

Language shapes the way we think. Abuse of language is a short road to scorn of education in general. The reintroduction of Latin to the grammar school curriculum would help a great deal...

Bp. Loverde On FOCA: "Take A Flying Leap"

2008-12-03T00:22:00.012-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Sadly, many U.S. Bishops today sound more like politicians than like Bishops. Here is a notable exception in the form of a fabulously Catholic quote from the truly courageous Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, VA on what he would do if the diabolical FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) were passed and required Catholic hospitals to perform abortions: (emphasis mine)

I would say, 'Yeah, I'm not going to close the hospital, you're going to arrest me, go right ahead. You'll have to drag me out, go right ahead. I'm not closing this hospital, we will not perform abortions, and you can go take a flying leap.

That's Catholic culture at its best; may we see much more of the same from the rest of the U.S. episcopate. The best part? His Excellency does not even have any Catholic hospitals in the Arlington diocese. Imagine what he would have said if he did...

Papal First Vespers of the First Sunday of Advent - 2008

2008-12-01T19:59:00.009-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Some pictures from the CTV broadcast of the Pontiff's First Vespers for the First Sunday of Advent (the first liturgical event of the new liturgical year) from Saint Peter's Basilica:

The reform continues...

Do Catholics "Plan" Their Children?

2008-12-01T17:14:00.008-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Darwin Catholic comments on his experiences and thoughts on "planned" reproduction and fundamental conflict of such terminology with Catholic mentality:

And yet, as I think about it, it's not that I think prudence plays no role in one's decisions about having children, but rather that I have a strong immediate reaction against ever discussing having a child as being "planned" or otherwise with anyone other than other committed Catholics I already know to share my beliefs about the nature of sexuality and marriage...

Read the rest... So long as the West continues to think of their children as punishments to be be "planned" (and what does "planned" ever really mean in this context other than the murder of those children who aren't planned?) rather than gifts (and responsibilities) from God, we are in for a true chastisement: one that can't be "taken care of..." This is what we need to get back to:

And Sometimes Silence

2008-11-05T00:42:00.009-05:00

†J.M.J.†
Prayers to prevent the election of Barack Obama tonight were not answered in the way any of us would like. Sometimes there is silence and that is not for us to question. But our task now is clear: saving innocent lives. Now we must pray for his conversion:

President-elect Barack Obama

May Almighty God save these United States of America...

How Much Time?

2008-11-03T19:38:00.004-05:00

†J.M.J.†
This is video that would be quite funny if there were not so many innocent lives being taken every day just here in the United States. Instead, it is enraging:

How much time should she do? You've got to be kidding, right? How much time? I don't know; how does 25 to life sound? That's what most states mandate for those convicted of premeditated murder. If somebody were to murder your children, how much time would you want them to do? That's what I thought...

The Holy... iPhone

2008-11-01T22:09:00.006-04:00

†J.M.J.†
Of course, we are all aware of the profound sanctification possible through the recitation of the Holy Rosary... So I suppose this was only a matter of time:

Yes, that is a screenshot of an iPhone application that emulates a set of Rosary beads. A good thing overall in my estimation, considering the things that people typically do with cell phones today. That is, until your 3rd Mystery gets interrupted by that "important" call...

The Feast of All Saints - I Class

2008-11-01T16:22:00.004-04:00

†J.M.J.†
We can pay no greater honor to the Saints than by offering up to God in their name the Blood of Jesus. The efficacy of their past merits and present prayers is greatly increased when offered to God in close association with the merits and prayers of our Lord. Therefore the Church commemorates on this day all the Saints in heaven without exception, and thus honors also those who are unknown and who have no public recognition in the Liturgy." - From the 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal, Angelus Press

The Curse of William Penn Shattered

2008-10-30T18:45:00.006-04:00

†J.M.J.†
Afull quarter-century has passed since the last Philadelphia major league Championship:

The last one was the 76ers' win in the NBA Finals in 1983, but the Philadelphia Phillies won the World Series 4-1 at home last night against the Tampa Bay Rays. Here's a little of how Philadelphia likes to celebrate, for those of you not from the area:

To Kill A Devout Soul

2008-10-24T20:14:00.014-04:00

†J.M.J.†
There certainly has been no lack of commentary on many of the most popular Catholic blogs of late on what moral principles bind the decisions of Catholics in the voting booth. This has addressed primarily the issue of whether a Catholic can in good conscience vote for Barack Obama despite his position on abortion. Is he off limits from the start? Or is it possible to justify a vote for Barack Obama in view of his other positions, including some very commendable measures designed to aid pregnant women contemplating the decision of abortion? What follows is a brief summary of my thought on the issue as a private lay person with no teaching authority whatsoever, but only a conscience constantly informed by the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I am prompted to post this now by yet another challenge to a specific aspect of my position. This is partially the fruit of the refinement of my thought as a result of these critiques.

"I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live..." - Deuteronomy xxx.xiv
Ireally love the book "To Kill A Mockingbird." If you've never read it, shame on you; get thee to a bookstore immediately and read this American classic. The title of the book comes from the popular notion that "it is a sin to kill a mockingbird." Why? From the book:

When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn't teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem, "I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." That was the only time I ever hear Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it. "You're father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

At any rate, I think it is easy to see that it is quite easy in this election to kill the life of the soul by deliberately choosing to contravene the teachings of the Church into which we all have been Baptized. Indeed, Bishops who have made clear the near occasion of mortal sin presented to us in voting are not exaggerating the gravitas of this decision. Many Catholics are dismayed to hear from their Pastors that voting can "impact their salvation," but indeed it can and will. Make no mistake: you can go to Hell for voting for somebody in deliberate contravention of Church teaching. It is very possible and God will not take this matter lightly. It is spiritually juvenile to think otherwise.
First of all, it is important to decide what issues will affect the way we vote. Contrary to the USCCB, I hold uneqivocally that one ought to consider abortion supreme among all possible issues in the American political landscape today. How is it that we may even being to consider the economy or the war when over one million Americans are being ruthlessly murdered every year, before they have even had a proper chance to live? Unfortunately, thirty-five years of unlimited abortion so far has numbed all of us, to one extent or another, to the profundity of this atrocity. We are devastated by news of ordinary murders, but our reaction to abortion sometimes amounts only to a disapproving wag of the head. This is the clear sign of a society that is entirely complacent. Those who study the Holocaust commonly ask the question, "How could the German people allow this to happen?" This is incredibly ironic today, as the answer to the question is all around us. This is exactly how Holocausts occur. We are living the experience... Who will be asking centuries from now, "How did the American (or European) people allow this to happen?"
That said, how are we to view Barack Obama? Well, I think we should take him at his word when he tells us that he doesn't know when life begins, and that he fully supports infanticide even after the baby is born and independently viable. Again, it is vital for all of us, Catholic or not, not to delude ourselves: this man is entirely complicit in mass murder. He supports the murder of countless babies, and we can only assume that this will be his unfettered policy as President of the United States. Thus, anybody who believes that murder is wrong is bound by conscience not to vote for this man, and it is certainly impossible under any circumstance for a Catholic deliberately to vote for him, regardless of whether they intend to support his position on abortion or not. A vote for any candidate necessarily makes us fully complicit with all of their policies, whether we would like to reject certain of them or not. Thus it is utter nonsense to say that one may vote for Barack Obama with impunity on account of this vote being cast in spite of his position on abortion rather than because of it. Indeed, to do so is grave matter. Assuming all other conditions are met, to do so would be a mortal sin. And, lest we forget, one mortal sin is sufficient to be damned.
So one should vote for John McCain, right? Well, yes and no... Yes, insofar as John McCain seems to be the only other option once Barack Obama is eliminated. No, insofar as John McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research, which necessiatates murders no less grave than the abortions to which Barack Obama lends his support. However, Barack Obama favors expanding ESCR and abortion, to both of which John McCain is mostly opposed. Clearly then the election of John McCain is preferable insofar as his election results in far less loss of precious human lives. So then since Catholic teaching has always permitted Catholics to act in favor of a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater one, one is morally free to vote for John McCain in good conscience.
So far all orthodox Catholics agree on these basic observations concerning Barack Obama and John McCain. Is there a third choice? Can one morally choose to abstain from voting altogether in view of the moral depravity of both men? This has been the subject of some the most important debate among Catholics in my opinion, but I answer in the affirmative. Some have answered this question in the negative, even claiming that to cast any vote but one for John McCain is fundamentally equivalent to a vote for Barack Obama. I detest this notion for several reasons.
Firstly, to vote is to participate in the democratic process, which is inherently flawed. Democracy, or at least the American brand of it which allocates an equal say to clearly unequal persons, is evil. A Catholic monarchy is obviously best, but barring that, one may wash one's hands entirely of the political process for this reason alone.
Secondly, it is only the recent and very fallible teaching of many bishops that "voting" is a duty common to all Catholics. The Church has never taught this and She never will. In response to those who would argue 1983 CCC #2240 against this opinion, I would most definitively say that positively choosing not to vote for any candidate is indeed an exercise of the right to vote. It differs tremendously from the those who simply fail to vote through sloth or apathy. No one ought to be apathetic to the political situation of the United States, but that does not preclude delicate souls from deciding that they simply could not bear to vote for either candidate. I would also note that the Catechism is not infallible unless the teaching itself already enjoys infallibility. Again, this has never been the case with the "duty to vote" nor can it ever be.
Thirdly, it ought to be observed that there will almost certainly be several monasteries and convents favourable to Tradition across the United States that on November 4th will not permit those under cloister to break it in order to vote. This is clear to anybody who can imagine what most Traditional religious superiors think of American politics. What is to be said of these holy individuals? Are they "cooperating with an objective evil?" I think not, and to say so is possible blasphemy.
Fourthly - and this is really the crux of my argument since I consider this a very pastoral issue - a tremendous respect must be paid here to the delicacy of the devout soul. Whereas some individuals are prepared in this election to choose "the lesser of two evils," some truly delicate consciences simply could not bear to vote for McCain. This comes back to my point as to why the Church has never and could never teach that one must vote. The Church could not compel a delicate soul to act contrary to conscience when that conscience is acting in total conformity with its teaching not to cooperate in evil. While this teaching also permits of voting for McCain as the potential "lesser of two evils," choosing not to vote is a more than legitimate understanding of the teaching not to cooperate in evil, and for the Church to force the faithful to choose between cooperating with Barack Obama or cooperating with John McCain would be hypocritical.
To abstain altogether is to recognize that neither man is tolerable and to surrender the decision to God, for pious fear of making the wrong decision. In Saint Thérèse's "The Story of a Soul," she recounts on more than one occasion of how, when confronted with the near occasion of sin, she did not make a choice, but simply and quite literally ran away. Her Little Way shows us that sometimes the best decision is to flee to God and entrust all to His infinite Providence. Thus, the position that one absolutely must vote for John McCain, presumably under pain of mortal sin, is a completely malicious mendacity. To hold this position is to trample upon the rights of delicate souls not to have to struggle with this decision, not to have to take upon themselves the blood of ESCR, not to have to suffer with the moral deficiencies of John McCain knowing that one has helped to put him in office. It is in this sense that these souls are like unto mockingbirds. They do harm to none but make for us by the example of their saintly lives a "music." Thus, it is a grave scandal to say that one must vote for John McCain under pain of sin. It is a lie. It is to kill a devout soul. It is to kill a mockingbird...
For some reason, some seem to suffer under the severe delusion, induced most likely by their understandable but wildly overzealous desire to see John McCain win, that deciding not to vote is actually a vote for Barack Obama. This is a logical fallacy. This is only true if one is morally capable of voting for John McCain, which some are not. We need to remember that we are the Catholic Church, not the Republican Party. We are not in the business of attempting to do spiritual violence to souls in order to put the lesser of two evils in office. The ends do not justify the means.
We must always remember that the Catholic Church is interested foremost in the good of souls, not in who becomes the next President of the United States. The Church is here to keep souls safe from people like John McCain and Barack Obama, not to throw them to the lions of American politics.
This position has been somewhat controversial among other Catholics, but I believe that voting for John McCain, a third-party candidate not opposed to Catholic doctrine, or not at all are all perfectly legitimate options in the light of the Church's law as I understand it. The only thing that is strictly forbidden is to actively support Barack Obama, whose election would be a dark day in America indeed...

WDTPRS Blognic

2008-10-24T12:58:00.005-04:00

†J.M.J.†
Iwas there with Father Z, the famous author of the blog What Does The Prayer Really Say?, last night at The Irish Pub near Rittenhouse Square in Center City, where he held his Philadelphia blognic. It was quite a classic time:

An Additional Doctor

2008-10-21T16:34:00.002-04:00

†J.M.J.†
A post from me on what I believe faithful Catholics must consider in voting, including some principles which I think apply regardless of whether one holds the Divine Faith, is imminently forthcoming. Until then, another video which hopefully rattles at least some from their very deep moral slumber:

La Verginità di Lucca

2008-10-16T11:18:00.002-04:00

†J.M.J.†
It occurs to me that I should say something about the patron of this blog, Saint Gemma Galgani. She is a rather obscure saint in America as modern saints go, and so a small word of explanation may be in order as to who she is and why she is important. A short hagiography on her from Catholic Online:

Gemma Galgani was born on March 12, 1878, in a small Italian town near Lucca. At a very young age, Gemma developed a love for prayer. She made her First Communion on June 17, 1887. As a pupil at the school run by the Sisters of St. Zita, Gemma was loved by her teachers and her fellow pupils. Although quiet and reserved, she always had a smile for everyone. Although a good student, she had to quit school due to chronic ill health before completing the course of study.
Throughout her life, Gemma was to be favored with many mystical experiences and special graces. These were often misunderstood by others, causing ridicule. Gemma suffered these heartaches in reparation, remembering that Our Lord Himself had been misunderstood and ridiculed.
Gemma had an immense love for the poor, and helped them in any way she could. After her father's death, the nineteen year old Gemma became the mother of her seven brothers and sisters. When some were old enough to share this responsibility, she lived briefly with a married aunt. At this time, two young men proposed marriage to her. Gemma however, wanted silence and retirement, and more that ever, she desired to pray and speak only to God.
Gemma returned home and almost immediately became very ill with meningitis. Throughout this illness, her one regret was the trouble she caused her relatives who took care of her. Feeling herself tempted by the devil, Gemma prayed for help to the Venerable Passionist, Gabriel Possenti. (Gabriel was later canonized) Through his intercession, Gemma was miraculously cured.
Gemma wished to become a nun, but her poor health prevented her from being accepted. She offered this disappointment to God as a sacrifice.
Gemma predicted that the Passionists would establish a monastery at Lucca; this came to pass two years after her death. Today, Gemma's mortal remains are still treasured at the Passionist monastery in Lucca.
On June 8, 1899, Gemma had an interior warning that some unusual grace was to be granted to her. She had pain in her hands, feet and heart and blood was coming from the places where she had pain. These were the marks of the stigmata. Each Thursday evening, Gemma would fall into rapture and the marks would appear. The stigmata remained until Friday afternoon or Saturday morning when the bleeding would stop, the wounds would close, and only white marks would remain in place of the deep gashes. Gemma's stigmata would continue to appear until the last three years of her life, when her confessor forbade her to accept them. Through her prayers, this phenomenon ceased, but the whitish marks remained on her skin until her death.
Through the help of her confessor, Gemma went to live with a family named Giannini, where she was allowed more freedom than at home for her spiritual life. She had many ecstacies and her words spoken during these raptures, were recorded by her confessor and a relative of her adoptive family. At the end of her ecstacies, she returned to normal and went quietly and serenely about the family life. Gemma often saw her guardian angel, with whom she was on familiar terms. She often sent her guardian angel on errands, usually to deliver a letter or oral message to her confessor in Rome.
During the apostolic investigations into her life, all witnesses testified that there was no artfulness in Gemma's manner. Most of her severe penances and sacrifices were hidden from most who knew her.
In January of 1903, Gemma was diagnosed as having tuberculosis. She died quietly in the company of the parish priest, on April 11 at age twenty-five. He said, "She died with a smile which remained upon her lips, so that I could not convince myself that she was really dead." She was beatified in 1933 and canonized on May 2, 1940, only thirty-seven years after her death.

She was not simply a good student; by many accounts she was positively brilliant. Her intellect and spirit were the very soul of the school according to one of her instructors. Furthermore, one of the subjects in which she excelled most was arithmetic... Obviously she was a unique girl indeed.
As evidenced by the photograph of her posted above, she was also quite beautiful. It also shows by her devout posture that charm of virtue which magnifies physical beauty. Anybody who has read her life and seen her photograph will have no trouble drawing parallels, as many have, between her and the Little Flower of Lisieux. They both lived over almost exactly the same span of time. Both of them were born to devout parents who died early, leaving the older siblings to care for the younger. Both of them were excellent students. Both of them aspired to the convent only to be rejected (initially in the case of Thérèse; permanently in the case of Gemma) by the superiors of those convents. Both of them died at a young age from tuberculosis: Thérèse at 24; Gemma at 25. Both of them were canonized soon after their death: Thérèse in 1925 by Pius XI; Gemma in 1940 by Pius XII. Lastly, they are strikingly similar in physical appearance.
I chose Gemma as the patron of the blog because she is commonly invoked as a patron of students, which includes me, (ancillary to this reason is her mathematical aptitude, as I am a passionate student of mathematics) and because she deserves far more attention as a modern Saint. Heroic virtue, beauty, and brilliance: what more could you want?

Sequendam recto itinere viam indicat...

2008-10-15T07:53:00.008-04:00

†J.M.J.†
A particularly resplendent quotation from Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, by Achille Ratti, concerning the relation between the Church (Ecclesia) and the world (orbis):

In variis erroribus, quos hominum mens peperit, exlege effrenataque licentia tumens, in profligatis moribus, quos miserrime humana nequitia invexit, tamquam turris nocturnis ignibus cursum navium regens erigitur Ecclesia Dei; quae porro omnem hinc illinc a veritate declinationem reprobat, quaeque singulis universis sequendam recto itinere viam indicat.

In the vernacular:

Amidst all the aberrations of human thought, infatuated by a false emancipation from every law and curb; and amidst the awful corruptions of human malice, the Church rises up like a bright lighthouse warning by the clearness of its beam every deviation to right or left from the way of truth, and pointing out to one and all the right course that they should follow.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself. We always ought to keep in mind that the Church is the only way to salvation and that this present world abounds with countless errors springing from the darkening of the intellect. None of them can be trusted, but only God...

"This Can Not Be Natural..."

2008-09-22T21:31:00.008-04:00

†J.M.J.†
Who is contaminating our water with all this dangerous dihydrogen monoxide?

I agree: stupidity that astounding can not be natural.

In Our Own Time

2008-09-19T02:15:00.022-04:00

†J.M.J.†
I am positively honored to call Father Ronald Check a dear friend of mine. He is a Priest for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia who was ordained in 2007; he is now Curate of a wonderful parish in South Philadelphia where he is promoting Tradition and general piety and holiness among all who have the privilege of knowing him. Although somewhat averse to modern pursuits, much to his merit, Father has recently started a new blog where he posts his daily spiritual reflections and Sunday sermons. They are excellent, naturally, and I would highly recommend his blog to anybody searching for spiritual refreshment in the desert of 21st century America. Father would blush if he knew I had said such a thing, but this man is truly a saint in our own time...

Some Are More Important...

2008-09-19T02:15:00.020-04:00

†J.M.J.†
One of the more inspiring videos I have seen in some time:

Clearly compelling to anybody who takes the Divine Faith seriously... One can not legitimately vote for Barack Obama and simulanteously confess the Catholic Faith before Almighty God without incurring His Divine wrath. Believe me, the Last Judgment will not look anything like the set of Meet the Press.

A Rare Breed

2008-09-19T02:15:00.005-04:00

†J.M.J.†
His Excellency Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix speaks uneqivocally, with courage and conviction, on the upcoming referendum in Arizona to amend the state constitution to the effect of defining civil marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Wait... This man is an American bishop? A rare breed indeed:

Stephen Colbert On the Lambeth Conference

2008-07-29T22:02:00.006-04:00

†J.M.J.†
Stephen Colbert is very often overlooked as one of, if not the most blatantly Catholic personality on comtemporary national television. For some reason, underneath all of his sarcasm and clever repartee, people can not see that he actually means most of what he says about the Catholic Faith. He is also hilarious... Here he is interviewing a guest about the current meltdown of the Anglican Communion:

A Beginning and An End

2008-07-28T19:27:00.050-04:00

†J.M.J.†
What is it that compels one to blog? To publish an online record of one's thoughts and ideations for the perusal of others? A desire to be known or loved? The honest conviction that one's ideas really must be communicated to others because of their intrinsic value? Simply the vice of pride?
I hope not... Allow me to introduce myself: I am Christopher Michael, a student from Philadelphia, PA. Of course, as is the case with any Traditional Catholic blog worth its salt, I am a former seminarian. I studied from 2006-2008 for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia at our own Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood. I have just recently resigned (perhaps I will expound upon this later).
Anyway, back to the point: this blog is Catholic. Catholic as in Jesus Christ (surely even the most secular among us remember Him?) and Pius V. These persons ought not to be confused with Sister Joan Chittister or Father Richard McBrien. That is, this blog adheres to and is written in support of Traditional Catholicism. For those who know what I mean by Traditional Catholicism: good for you. For those who don't: somewhere to start.So why am I writing? Toward what end, as the title of this post points out, is this blog ordered? It is mostly for my own benefit, as I am quite the graphomaniac and feel that thoughts are expressed best when written (Sacred Scripture for instance). As such, it serves as a record of my thoughts on various subjects across time. Of course, it is also written as an apologia for Catholicism in modern American culture, which is obviously highly hostile to it. In this regard, it is hoped that it may be an occasion of grace to at least some, but surely an occasion of education and edification to more.
As to the title of the blog, for those who don't already know, "quid mihi et tibi est" ("What is that to me or to you?") are the words of Our Saviour to His Blessed Mother at Cana. It ought to serve as a reminder to all of us that ours is a but a pilgrimage in this world and that we are not yet home. In the words of another man I greatly admire, I think I'll stop here... For now.